Re: Why blockchain, why DLT?

Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>

I think this is a useful conversation to have, but this list is for discussing the technical implementation of the Hyperledger Fabric code, not really the right place for a broader conversation or debate about when permissioned or unpermissioned blockchain tech is useful or not.  Unless, of course, you can direct that into a material conversation about how this might affect Fabric, in its design, use cases, etc.  I think we are operating here from a common understanding that permissioned chains are useful, and worth exploring.  But PBFT is also not the last word in consensus mechanisms, permissioned or not, so it's probably important to continue to see how pluggable and modular we can make the consensus mechanism in Fabric, as well as explore other consensus approaches in other Hyperledger projects (like Sawtooth Lake).



On 07/28/2016 06:28 AM, Zhang, Jian wrote:

Good point, and appreciate the last question a lot,


If so, then permissioned blockchain is not the ultimate answer to the trust issue, as it is in the end an “extended” centralized system.


Maybe, what permissioned blockchain vs public blockchain are, are like what intranet vs internet are. It will be the public blockchain that revolutionize our way of life, in particular after the FIAT is replaced with digital currency. Permissioned blockchains on the other hand will be used for companies for internal operations, and as infrastructure technology to interoperate with public blockchains.







Jian Zhang | Enterprise Architect | Group Architecture | RBC | Desk Phone: (416) 974-6578 |


From: hyperledger-fabric-bounces@... [mailto:hyperledger-fabric-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Baohua Yang
Sent: 2016, July, 28 7:50 AM
To: Yash Ganthe
Cc: hyperledger-fabric
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger-fabric] Why blockchain, why DLT?


Yash, let me try to throw some rough thoughts.


IMHO, the direct answer is that it costs much more to design a trustworthy central system with mechanisms like auditing and security protection.


Think the banking system as example, even only consider the operation cost, it still wastes huge amount of money. However, there're still lots of accident there every year. 


Even we can design such an ideal central system that protects its behaviour very well and makes no mistake, it still needs to be operated by some "central" team. There is no easy way to guarantee such team to keep neutral.  


Even you build a ideal system and find an ideal team to operate, how to make other people trust that? People will prefer to trust what in their hands, that's how distributed system works.


At last, as always said, the computes world is built following principles in real world. 


In human society, would u trust a single righteous person or a voting result by most people?




On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Yash Ganthe <yashgt@...> wrote:



I have gone through this blog and other articles on the topic. The question is still around the need of distributing the trust. Why not make a centralized system so trustworthy that no party faces the risk of fraudulent transactions? We can introduce, auditing, security measures, etc. to build a robust system and spare every party the need to be involved in giving consensus for other's transactions.


Is there a real life example of how trust has been breached in a central system that justifies the need for distributed system?




On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Christian Cachin <cca@...> wrote:


The problem is, you have to trust the centralized system.  The motivation
for blockchain is that you can distributed that trust.  I've written about
this here

And if you are technically inclined, see the various communications around
blockchain or research papers on the topic.


On 26 Jul 2016 18:17:24 +0530, Yash Ganthe <yashgt@...> wrote:
> Hi,
> The blockchain for bitcoin makes several miners perform tremendous amount
> of computation to make a transaction successful. The total amount of
> resources spent on finalizing a block is way more than what would have been
> spent in a centralized system. A central ledger and central authentication
> would have still enabled peers to perform a transaction.
> Several financial firms are presently looking towards Distributed Ledger
> Technology. The primary argument given everywhere is DLT helps in
> eliminating intermediaries that maintained their own ledger and hence
> avoids reconciliation overheads and delays. What is preventing the same
> problems from being solved with a central system that would have maintained
> ledgers that could have been accessed programmatically using API?
> DLT appears to introduce complexities like endorsement, consensus,
> signatures and a whole lot of inter-peer communication that burns more
> resources than the time it saves. Why not spend on improving centralized
> systems instead of inventing a complex paradigm?
> Regards,
> Yash


Hyperledger-fabric mailing list



Best wishes!


If you received this email in error, please advise the sender (by return email or otherwise) immediately. You have consented to receive the attached electronically at the above-noted email address; please retain a copy of this confirmation for future reference.

Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur immédiatement, par retour de courriel ou par un autre moyen. Vous avez accepté de recevoir le(s) document(s) ci-joint(s) par voie électronique à l'adresse courriel indiquée ci-dessus; veuillez conserver une copie de cette confirmation pour les fins de reference future.

Hyperledger-fabric mailing list

Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director at the Hyperledger Project
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf

Join to automatically receive all group messages.